Developer Diary #336 Discussion

[pippa101]

Personally I'm just grateful that there are people out there who continue to develop this stuff for me. I came to this version via STEAM a few years ago because I wanted to relaunch my Il2 'complete edition' which I think dates to the early 2000's.

I have acknowledged that I am a rubbish pilot, an annoyingly average fighter pilot and when it comes to bombing I can barely hit a target the size of a small city. I live in hope - just maybe I'm the best photo recon pilot that ever existed, I just haven't had the opportunity to try.

There are people on here with far more knowledge than I'll ever get close to, and watching some of the videos has been a real eye opener for me. Just as a point of discussion; would other people like to see (would it be simpler, more cost effective) to build photo recon aircraft for existing GB? I suspect that some of the aircraft already included could be 'converted' to carry out recon missions (Spitfire, Mosquito, Ar234 etc. was the HS129 used for PR?) but an FW189, HS126 and something Allied to match perhaps.

Then one of you very clever chaps would need to develop a scripted campaign for each 'period', Moscow, Stalingrad, Kuban, CloD, Bodenplatte, Normandy etc. I have to be honest and say that I have no idea whether this meets with other peoples desires, nor do I have any clue as to how much work this would involve and whether it would then be 'cost effective' and I won't take it personally if you guys slap me down for this nonsensical notion. BV141 anyone?

[ITAF_Rani]

7 hours ago, migmadmarine said:

They ain't the 6AS has an uprated engine with different gearing, so it's not the same performance envelope, and also has some additional streamlining that makes it more similar to a K-4 or G-10 than to the G-14. Otherwise the G-14 wouldn't have had it's own AS variant historically if it had those features inherently. 

You right

[=_=HeavenAndClouds]

You have my money, 

Although G10 would be nicer,

I guess you are saving it for another project 

[sevenless]

9 minutes ago, =SquadTag=Username_ said:

You have my money, 

Although G10 would be nicer,

I guess you are saving it for another project 

 

G-10 would only be usable in career mode on Bodenplatte map. Intro date was 10/1944. They most likely save it for a 44/45 eastfront module like the 190-A9.

[=_=HeavenAndClouds]

7 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

G-10 would only be usable in career mode on Bodenplatte map. Intro date was 10/1944. They most likely save it for a 44/45 eastfront module like the 190-A9.

You mean like the Ta-152H1?

[sevenless]

Just now, =SquadTag=Username_ said:

You mean like the Ta-152H1?

 

I don´t think that one will ever see the light of day in this sim, but who knows?

[Mainstay]

Nice! Can we please see the B-17 AI and fly able Do-17 or Do-217 next please?

[SCG_motoadve]

11 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

For that there is Digital Combat Simulator (with those aspects translating into purchasing cost).  IL-2 is not that kind of “simulator”, even with their favorite, the Bf-109.

 

 

WWII MP is dead in DCS, and last time I played the DM was worse than War Thunder, and the performance in VR horrible.

The planes are nice to fly though.

[Picchio]

Perhaps the addition of these variants might also be the chance for improving cockpit textures?

Older models do suffer quite a bit, 109s and 190s (with Dora being an exception) have not aged too well.

[JG5_Schuck]

12 hours ago, SCG_motoadve said:

 

 

I will probably buy the 109, but to really give excitement to the series I would be happy to pay for a realism package for the sim that includes:

Wake turbulence

Realistic torque

Gun recoil

Hydraulic damage

Electrical damage

More realistic landings and take offs

Fuel systems modelling.

 

 
Absolutely 100%, especially the take off and landing, a big gripe of mine. (people not using the runway correctly!!!)
Once upon a time you got stuck in snow, and taking off on grass was quite difficult ( why the G4 has bigger tyres fitted)
but now you can take off in a fully loaded plane on a ploughed field or snow without issue.... 
Can we have the original modeling back please..... maybe under a realism option for servers to choose..
and as motoadve says, some damage to hydraulics (how many clips do you see planes drop a wheel when hit) or electrics (loss of instruments, radio armament if electrically operated) more realism options?

But back to the subject, if the G6 AS helps fill in the 109 timeline, then its a worthy addition....
Purely by numbers a 109 G14 AS would have been better, but available at a later date (not Normandy)
Maybe the devs are just thinking forward to what may be included further down the line...

[=_=HeavenAndClouds]

Can I pay already, Han? 

 

thx 

 

 

[senseispcc]

Nice future addition, thanks

And there are many Allied or other nations planes to be added  for WW one or two, a lot of work for  the team n the future! 

Maybe also a map of Germany to end the war east and west?

Or a map and the planes for a 1940 campaign...etc. 

Edited December 17, 2022 by senseispcc
Addition

[sevenless]

2 hours ago, JG5_Schuck said:

Purely by numbers a 109 G14 AS would have been better, but available at a later date (not Normandy)

 

The G6/AS with MW-50 basically is the G14/AS. We get that per engine mod.

 

- DB605ASM engine using С3 fuel (100 octane) with MW50 water-methanol injection system, allowing 1.7 ATA and 1800 HP takeoff power (up to 10 minutes time limit while there is water-methanol mixture left). In this modification the engine can take the takeoff power longer, but the downside is that the aircraft becomes around 100 kg heavier (MW50 weight).

 

Description G14/AS:

 

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by sevenless

[Eisenfaustus]

To be honest I’m a little surprised at how well the 3rd G6 seems to be received here - so obviously the devs know their community well. 
 

I have a little hope that the inclusion of a high alt fighter might lead to career missions that are set higher then 2000m - very little hope indeed…

[Niagara]

On 12/16/2022 at 9:28 AM, JG27_Steini said:

 

There is no map fitting for the plane. So single player is very much limited.

above quote was in ref to Yak 3 .== But we --DO-- have maps for the A-20 G / C/ H ===   and Still Nothing ?

[ROCKET_KNUT]

1 hour ago, Eisenfaustus said:

"...so obviously the devs know their community well..."

Looks like they do. And they also know their sales figures as well. I understand the announcement of that unique bird ? as a message: "Forget what YOU want, WE´RE going to make, what sells and it has to sell well first and foremost..." I´d love to be proven wrong, by the devs that is, but I doubt it. So, lets see, what 2023 brings.

Edited December 17, 2022 by ROCKET_KNUT

[Bonnot]

43 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

To be honest I’m a little surprised at how well the 3rd G6 seems to be received here

 

The reception seems quite mixed to say the least -and it is by the forum.......How it translates in sales maybe another interesting story ?

To be fair, I don't buy it , but I recognised she is a beautiful artwork, although with the skin presented here  she looks like a California sportcar  ?

[Avimimus]

12 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

I don’t care, I think you’re just wrong. IL-2 has never even pretended to be a systems simulator.

 

What about the faulty canopy open latch on the Yak-7B?

The fact that only one landing light operates at a time on the Hurricane II?

The wiring on the Pe-2 which has the last four RS-132 wired to the same trigger?

The built in time delay for reaching over and switching between bombs on the Mosquito FB.VI?

The Mig-3 flaps which raise and then drop down to the new stopper position (even when one is lowering the flaps)?

 

All of these things represent unique code modelling specific quirks of specific systems in specific aircraft. None of them were necessary additions.

I agree that the depth of systems simulation might not be as great as some DCS modules - but it is surprisingly deep for a WWI/WWII sim... as for 'pretend' - perhaps you are right - but mainly because they don't tend to advertise the depth of the modelling... and most of these features go unnoticed.

[Voidhunger]

Lets hope for Mercedes DIIIau engine for the Fokker. It was requested for many many years and still nothing.

[Bonnot]

7 hours ago, pippa101 said:

I have acknowledged that I am a rubbish pilot, an annoyingly average fighter pilot and when it comes to bombing I can barely hit a target the size of a small city. I live in hope - just maybe I'm the best photo recon pilot that ever existed, I just haven't had the opportunity to try.

 

Being somewhat in the same category, I confess I never saw the " last four RS-132 wiring " which is as far from my knowledge than the perfect % mixture for a " G14 A/S " , although I'm proud to have both.

Nevertheless, I again support the demand of Pippa101 for Recco/Photo planes : a P38 (Saint Exupery memory) or a Mosquito with clear nose, the UHU etc.....

Remember :  we have only ONE variant for Mossie or Lightning, against hordes of 109 !

Edited December 17, 2022 by Bonnot

[migmadmarine]

39 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

Lets hope for Mercedes DIIIau engine for the Fokker. It was requested for many many years and still nothing.

There was mention in that birthday Q&A that Jason did I think in 2020(?) about the prospect of introducing those engine variations with the development of Vol.II and Vol.III of Flying Circus, hopefully that is still the case. 

For the G6-AS, I'll admit I am a little surprised to be getting it as one of this lot of vairant collector aircraft, but I don't mind, I think it represents an interest side path about what happens when you try to hotrod the 109 design while not committing as far into other upgrades like the improved landing gear farings like on the G10 +retracting  tailwheel on the K-4. How much can you actually hotrod the aircraft with only a new engine, with out expending the effort on other aerodynamic improvements?

[fergal69]

9 hours ago, pippa101 said:

Personally I'm just grateful that there are people out there who continue to develop this stuff for me. I came to this version via STEAM a few years ago because I wanted to relaunch my Il2 'complete edition' which I think dates to the early 2000's.

I have acknowledged that I am a rubbish pilot, an annoyingly average fighter pilot and when it comes to bombing I can barely hit a target the size of a small city. I live in hope - just maybe I'm the best photo recon pilot that ever existed, I just haven't had the opportunity to try.

There are people on here with far more knowledge than I'll ever get close to, and watching some of the videos has been a real eye opener for me. Just as a point of discussion; would other people like to see (would it be simpler, more cost effective) to build photo recon aircraft for existing GB? I suspect that some of the aircraft already included could be 'converted' to carry out recon missions (Spitfire, Mosquito, Ar234 etc. was the HS129 used for PR?) but an FW189, HS126 and something Allied to match perhaps.

Then one of you very clever chaps would need to develop a scripted campaign for each 'period', Moscow, Stalingrad, Kuban, CloD, Bodenplatte, Normandy etc. I have to be honest and say that I have no idea whether this meets with other peoples desires, nor do I have any clue as to how much work this would involve and whether it would then be 'cost effective' and I won't take it personally if you guys slap me down for this nonsensical notion. BV141 anyone?

 

Wooh, someone else like me who would like the BV141 ?

[Praetorious]

8 minutes ago, fergal69 said:

 

Wooh, someone else like me who would like the BV141 ?

I'm there with ya,if its weird i want it,i would pay 30 dollars for a FW189 or a Storch in a heartbeat and a BV141 would be a dream come thru although that plane really didn't see any action, would be more of a novelty plane but nice to have! 

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

To be honest I’m a little surprised at how well the 3rd G6 seems to be received here - so obviously the devs know their community well.

 

Meh, as copy-paste as it is, at least it'll have a longer career than the bubbletop Spit.

 

The most useful G-6/AS niche for me will be the option that allows 3 minutes at ~1800 HP. No MW-50.

 

That might be interesting, in terms of handling/performance tradeoffs. The same way the G-6 Late offers an alternative to the heavier late 109s, maybe the AS will offer some slightly different characteristics to set it apart.

[dbuile]

3 hours ago, Bonnot said:

Nevertheless, I again support the demand of Pippa101 for Recco/Photo planes : a P38 (Saint Exupery memory) or a Mosquito with clear nose, the UHU etc.....

Remember :  we have only ONE variant for Mossie or Lightning, against hordes of 109 !

Be careful what you agree to!  There's always a Bf109 G-6/R2 recce configuration!    http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2015/05/bf-109-g-6r2-with-asm-engine-wnr-162080.html

 

Regardless, I'm a kind of Rip Van Winkle, nearly 20 years away from sims, so I'm rather pleased seeing such a plane.  I was a big 109 fan, and guess I still am . "Sitting" in these cockpits, actually looking like real cockpits (not like 20 years ago!!!) is super cool...   

[Jade_Monkey]

6 hours ago, ROCKET_KNUT said:

Looks like they do. And they also know their sales figures as well. I understand the announcement of that unique bird ? as a message: "Forget what YOU want, WE´RE going to make, what sells and it has to sell well first and foremost..." I´d love to be proven wrong, by the devs that is, but I doubt it. So, lets see, what 2023 brings.

 

Pretty contradictory statement. If it sells well then it's representative of what the community wants. It's a win win. 

[Bonnot]

1 hour ago, dbuile said:

There's always a Bf109 G-6/R2 recce configuration! 

 

Yes, but externally it is not really different,  the Uhu or P38 are........

[Kurfurst]

15 hours ago, JLean said:

While waiting new Bf 109G-6/AS some  "facts" about how many AS version were in use and in which units.... to whoever could be interested.

Disclaimer: I have some doubts how well units recorded what G-6 versions they had but here seems that AS appears in record first time in June - 44

 

Time frame Jun-Dec 44 for total numbers and an extract units using G-6/AS in August

Source of data: https://www.ww2.dk/

 

(sorry my excel localisation: Months Jun -Dec) 

 

 JLean

The prototype /AS flew September 1943 and a couple were already built in December 1943.

 

It was certainly with several units by the late March / early April 1944 period as there are several photographs depicting the aircraft and its easily identifiable from its bigger streamlined cowling. 
 

The reason most of these early planes do not show up at the unit movement records at ww2.dk is due to how they were produced - Messerschmitt built and registered them as G-6s on the main production line and thus they were reported on their licence plates. Those selected to be /As were then shipped to Erla Antwerp which was a smaller factory and retrofitted the new planes to G-6/AS which was rather simple as it more or less concerned putting a bigger supercharger on the engine and a new cowling. But as such they were built as G-6 with G-6 serials they kept the name on their license plate and were reported back as such by the main unit reports shown on ww2.dk.

 

As a result you do not find listed them as G-6/AS (or G-5/AS) at ww2.dk even though you have several pictures at the time from the given unit of 109s with strange cowlings.

Only the last 226 or so (1/3 of the total built) were built ‘organically’ as G-6/AS shortly before the whole thing was renamed G-14/AS hence why you only find them reported as G-6/AS only from the summer of 1944.

[oc2209]

14 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

If it sells well then it's representative of what the community wants. It's a win win. 

 

Since the development costs are relatively low for variants of planes that already exist in the sim, the devs have every reason to want to make variants; they have a high profit margin, even if their sales numbers aren't huge.

 

I don't see planes like another G-6 or teardrop Spit as necessarily a reflection of what the community wants, but more a reflection of a low-risk development strategy.

 

A brand new, non-variant collector plane will obviously make people more excited, but also carries inherently more risk and upfront development costs.

 

I would further guess that variants serve as a good training exercise for new-hires to work on. It'd be counterintuitive to expand the team and make several exotic/non-variant collector planes at the same time, utilizing unproven/inexperienced labor with potentially difficult-to-model planes.

 

So we might see a fairly long string of these 'same-y' variants in the coming years. If that's a necessary side-effect of hiring new/more people, so be it.

[dbuile]

15 minutes ago, Bonnot said:

Yes, but externally it is not really different,  the Uhu or P38 are........

I was just playin'    

[ROCKET_KNUT]

1 hour ago, Jade_Monkey said:

"Pretty contradictory statement." "...of what the community wants."

Or is it? So far I´ve got the feeling, the devteam developed, what was attractive to them and a wide range of customers. They´ve tried to please everyone. Commercial success might not have been their first priority so far. From my point of view, this might have changed. They might be listening to the part of the community, which seems to be much more promising from a sales department point of view. Is that a big or a small part of the community? I don´t know. A loud part? Maybe. Do I want to be a part of that? This decision is completely up to me. As for now, I´m going to wait and see, into what exactly IL-2 GB is going to develope. A game, that represents each and every sub-sub-sub-sub-variant of the 109-series? Surely won´t be on top of my list of the things to have in life, but that is just me. So, a win win situation? I´m not convinced (just yet). ?

[Wardog5711]

 

Quote

Is that a big or a small part of the community? I don´t know. A loud part?

 

To add some perspective to that comment, I check the online users list from time to time. A recent check showed 232 users on the site, but only 57 were registered accounts.

The other 175 were guests looking at skins, the new DD info, ClOD and various support topics etc.  A handful were looking at  threads in the general section. But not many.

A quick check just a few minutes ago showed 130 users with 29 of them registered.  It stays fairly constant throughout the day. Maybe 25-30% of the folks checking out the site have accounts.  It's not at all scientific, but I would imagine the majority of the total players just fly the SIM without feeling the need to spend a lot of time here talking about it. And I would assume the marketing department has their own numbers to work with. The forum plays a valuable role in testing and feedback, but it is not the only deciding factor that a lot of folks think it is or think it should be.

 

[Thad]

On 12/16/2022 at 10:35 AM, Jiggs said:

I love all the 109’s. Thank you team!

 

Yea, gotta  love that new plane smell.

[FeuerFliegen]

Is the engine cowling identical to the one on the K4?  

If so, how come the G-14 didn't get it, as it is a later airplane?

Is there any performance difference at low altitude compared to the standard G-6 Late or G-14?  or is it simply an increase at high altitude?  (aside from the aerodynamic effects of the cowling)

What is the critical altitude compared to the G-6 Late/G-14?

[migmadmarine]

9 minutes ago, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

Is the engine cowling identical to the one on the K4?  

If so, how come the G-14 didn't get it, as it is a later airplane?

Is there any performance difference at low altitude compared to the standard G-6 Late or G-14?  or is it simply an increase at high altitude?  (aside from the aerodynamic effects of the cowling)

What is the critical altitude compared to the G-6 Late/G-14?

The G-14 is basically an effort to standardize all the features of the base model G6, as several factories had their own variations and features added. Since the AS isn't the basic G6 version, it isn't part of the G-14 standard. The G-10 was the subsequent version that inherently included the AS engine and improved aerodynamics of the new cowling, as well as better landing gear farings like on the K-4

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Wardog5711 said:

To add some perspective to that comment, I check the online users list from time to time. A recent check showed 232 users on the site, but only 57 were registered accounts.

The other 175 were guests looking at skins, the new DD info, ClOD and various support topics etc.  A handful were looking at  threads in the general section. But not many.

A quick check just a few minutes ago showed 130 users with 29 of them registered.  It stays fairly constant throughout the day. Maybe 25-30% of the folks checking out the site have accounts.  It's not at all scientific, but I would imagine the majority of the total players just fly the SIM without feeling the need to spend a lot of time here talking about it. And I would assume the marketing department has their own numbers to work with. The forum plays a valuable role in testing and feedback, but it is not the only deciding factor that a lot of folks think it is or think it should be.

 

 

Developers: "We plan on adding a few collector planes that are modifications of existing aircraft."

 

Players: "Okay, sounds cool!"

 

Developers: "Here's the first one, the Bf 109 G-6/AS."

 

Players: "OMFG why are we getting yet another mod of an existing aircraft."

 

Developers: ???????

Edited December 18, 2022 by LukeFF

[FurphyForum]

Yep... how right you are @LukeFF ?

[CCG_Pips]

For sure......................................................................>

 

I WILL KEEP MY MONEY ...?

 

With French words : Foutage de gueule !!!

Edited December 18, 2022 by CCG_Pips

[=_=HeavenAndClouds]

15 bucks isnt a lot for the best late war 109 imo 

but you do you,

fly allies 

[Obelix]

Very surprising this choice of "tweaking" of Me 109! But for which opponent? B17? B24? If this is only to satisfy some "players", honestly it is not very reasonable.

What about the versions of other aircraft, usable on the Map Normandy? Like a Typhoon with car door, a Spitfire mk IXc, or an A20G. About the A20, why don't we have any US bombs? 

And going further, when will a "B" version of the Ju82, useful for the Moscow map, as the P40C

And if we go even further, the abandonment of the B26 and the B25 pilots is for me a real heartbreak.

 

In conclusion, I'm quite disappointed by this DD

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Obelix